Usual uncertainties in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) results include numerical errors, modeling errors, program bugs, mistakes in input parameters and boundary conditions. The errors can be assessed using itemized results from the CFD program together with its documentation. Each uncertainty can be assessed by evaluating the variables against each other, parameter responsiveness examinations and testing for simplified items. The role is made easier if the program is as transparent as possible. This means that the user can see the values of all the pertinent variables and mediatory results for the whole computational domain. Together with an extensive collection of documents of the computer program that includes all the formulas used, the user can be able to find the causes of suspect results, including an estimation of possible bugs. An important tool in the testing of a CFD program is using simplified cases, generally channels with uniform one-dimensional flow.
| Published in |
American Journal of Civil Engineering (Volume 3, Issue 2-2)
This article belongs to the Special Issue Research and Practices of Civil Engineering in Developing Countries |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ajce.s.2015030202.17 |
| Page(s) | 33-37 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Sediment, Models, CFD, Transport
| [1] | Baranya, S. and Jozsa, J.) “Morphological modeling of a sand-bed reach in the Hungarian Danube”, Proceedings of the 33rd Congress of the International Association of Hydraulic Engineering and Research, Vancouver, Canada, 2009. |
| [2] | T. Fischer-Antze, N. R. B. Olsen. and D.Gutknecht, "Three-dimensional CFD modeling of morphological bed changes in the Danube River", Water Resources Research, 44, W09422,doi:10.1029/2007WR006402,2008. |
| [3] | T.Fischer-Antze,N., Ruether,.,N.R.B Olsen, and D .Gutknecht,. "3D modeling of non-uniform sediment transport in a channel bend with unsteady flow", Journal of Hydraulic Engineering and Research, Vol. 47, No. 5, pp. 670-675, 2009. |
| [4] | H. Schlichting, "Boundary layer theory", McGraw-Hill, 1979. |
| [5] | M.Abboltt, An introduction to the Method of characteristics, Thames and Hudsun, 1966. |
| [6] | M.Abotte, Computational Hydraulics, Pitman, 1979. |
| [7] | F.Henderson,Open Channel Flow, Macmillan,1996. |
| [8] | W.Gray and G.. Pinder, On the relationship between the FEand FD method, Int.j.Num. Methods Engng, Vol.12, No.9, 1976. |
| [9] | S.Nakamura, Computational Method Engineering and Science, Wiley,1997. |
| [10] | A.Raudkivi and R Callander, Advanced Fluid Mechanics, Arnold, 1975. |
| [11] | R.H Gallagher(ED).Finite Element Techniques for Fluid Flow, Newnes Bruteerworths,1976. |
| [12] | R. Hamming, Introduction to Applied Numerical Analysis, McGraw-Hill,1971. |
| [13] | E.Isaaacson and H. Keller, Analysis of Numerical Methods, Willy, 1966. |
APA Style
Hamid Reza Madihi, Sina Bani Amerian. (2015). Evaluating Methods for 3D CFD Models in Sediment Transport Computations. American Journal of Civil Engineering, 3(2-2), 33-37. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajce.s.2015030202.17
ACS Style
Hamid Reza Madihi; Sina Bani Amerian. Evaluating Methods for 3D CFD Models in Sediment Transport Computations. Am. J. Civ. Eng. 2015, 3(2-2), 33-37. doi: 10.11648/j.ajce.s.2015030202.17
AMA Style
Hamid Reza Madihi, Sina Bani Amerian. Evaluating Methods for 3D CFD Models in Sediment Transport Computations. Am J Civ Eng. 2015;3(2-2):33-37. doi: 10.11648/j.ajce.s.2015030202.17
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ajce.s.2015030202.17,
author = {Hamid Reza Madihi and Sina Bani Amerian},
title = {Evaluating Methods for 3D CFD Models in Sediment Transport Computations},
journal = {American Journal of Civil Engineering},
volume = {3},
number = {2-2},
pages = {33-37},
doi = {10.11648/j.ajce.s.2015030202.17},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajce.s.2015030202.17},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajce.s.2015030202.17},
abstract = {Usual uncertainties in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) results include numerical errors, modeling errors, program bugs, mistakes in input parameters and boundary conditions. The errors can be assessed using itemized results from the CFD program together with its documentation. Each uncertainty can be assessed by evaluating the variables against each other, parameter responsiveness examinations and testing for simplified items. The role is made easier if the program is as transparent as possible. This means that the user can see the values of all the pertinent variables and mediatory results for the whole computational domain. Together with an extensive collection of documents of the computer program that includes all the formulas used, the user can be able to find the causes of suspect results, including an estimation of possible bugs. An important tool in the testing of a CFD program is using simplified cases, generally channels with uniform one-dimensional flow.},
year = {2015}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Evaluating Methods for 3D CFD Models in Sediment Transport Computations AU - Hamid Reza Madihi AU - Sina Bani Amerian Y1 - 2015/02/12 PY - 2015 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajce.s.2015030202.17 DO - 10.11648/j.ajce.s.2015030202.17 T2 - American Journal of Civil Engineering JF - American Journal of Civil Engineering JO - American Journal of Civil Engineering SP - 33 EP - 37 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2330-8737 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajce.s.2015030202.17 AB - Usual uncertainties in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) results include numerical errors, modeling errors, program bugs, mistakes in input parameters and boundary conditions. The errors can be assessed using itemized results from the CFD program together with its documentation. Each uncertainty can be assessed by evaluating the variables against each other, parameter responsiveness examinations and testing for simplified items. The role is made easier if the program is as transparent as possible. This means that the user can see the values of all the pertinent variables and mediatory results for the whole computational domain. Together with an extensive collection of documents of the computer program that includes all the formulas used, the user can be able to find the causes of suspect results, including an estimation of possible bugs. An important tool in the testing of a CFD program is using simplified cases, generally channels with uniform one-dimensional flow. VL - 3 IS - 2-2 ER -
Information
Email: